Share this

Read more!

Get our weekly email

Enter your email address

A couple of months ago a man called Simon
Herbert put in a planning application to convert a house into a children's home
in Buckinghamshire. The house stands in Vale Road, Aylesbury, on a mixed estate
of mostly owner-occupiers. Herbert gave the local planning authority his residential
address, 27 miles away, in the village of Lidington near Milton Keynes.

But the children's home provider wasn't Simon Herbert, the man from a village up the road. It was G4S, the world's largest security company — headquarters
Crawley, close to Gatwick Airport. The G4S name did not appear on the
planning application.

That wasn't the only odd thing about it.

A Supporting Statement purporting to come
from 'Childrens Services' was sent to Aylesbury Vale District Council.

It's on the Council's website for members of
the public to read. The document bears a cheery logo — four smiley faces,
and the slogan "Caring for Children".

Amid eight positive pages, it claims: "Both
Local and National Planning Policy support the proposed change of use."

That sounds reassuring. Who wrote it? Perhaps
the Local Authority Children Services department?

Well, no. The document from 'Childrens
Services' is by G4S. Yet the company name appears nowhere upon it.

Council officers have been baffled by the
'change of use' application for the house on Vale Road. On 4 June, Belle Daytonn, the committee
administrator for Aylesbury Town Council, emailed the District Council planning
department:

"Is this application from a private person, Mr Simon Herbert?
Is Mr Herbert linked with Benjamin Homes UK? Is the home linked with social
services?"

Sue Pilcher, the senior planning officer,
replied: "Although the application has been submitted in the name of Simon
Herbert, he is a director of G for S Care and Justice Services." (She
means G4S). Pilcher said the company "have discussed the site with Bucks
County Council Children's Services with a view to housing children there should
permission be granted."

I searched Simon Herbert's name for other
applications to convert houses into children's homes. He's been busy. There's an
application to Milton Keynes Council to convert a property in Great Linford. And another
one to South Northamptonshire Council to turn a house into a children's home in
the village of Middleton Cheney. No mention of G4S.

Do the villagers of Great Linford and
Middleton Cheney know that G4S is coming their way?

I asked company spokesperson Nicola Savage
what G4S is up to.

She said that there were four such
planning applications under consideration — in Buckinghamshire,
Oxfordshire and Worcestershire. She claimed:

“It is common practice for planning
applications for change of use to be made in an individual’s name, and in fact
the vast majority of applications for Children’s Homes are made in this way.
There are also commercial considerations which mean we would prefer our
competitors are not informed of our plans."

What are we to make of that?

Can it be true that commercial operators of
children's homes routinely conceal their identity in planning applications? Are the vast majority of commercial children's home providers keeping public officials and representatives and local residents in the dark? Is that all right?

And what about that commercial imperative to conceal the corporate identity? Does that make sense?

The most recent guidance from Government (The
Children Act, Guidance and Regulations, Volume 5, Children's Homes, 2011 PDF) places a
requirement on all providers to take into account the location of similar
services in the area when considering the location of new children's homes.

Does hoodwinking the public show 'integrity
and good character'? I asked Ofsted, who are responsible for inspecting and approving children's homes (or not).

They said:

“Ofsted is unaware of the specific details of this particular application, however as a general rule Ofsted would be concerned if a provider were willfully misrepresenting themselves in a planning application to a local authority and would take action accordingly to investigate.”

If G4S's plan was to evade local opposition,
it didn't work in Aylesbury.

An alert resident called Glenda Beato rumbled
the G4S connection and found out that Simon Herbert is in fact the commercial
director of G4S Children's Services.

Beato lives with her husband and two children in Vale Road,
Aylesbury. She works as an administrator in a community centre. She called
a public meeting, inviting G4S to attend. Paul Cook, the managing director of G4S
children's services, came along. Beato says: "the mysterious Simon Herbert
attended too but said nothing!" Beato says more than 100 residents packed the St
John's Ambulance HQ in Aylesbury on 10 June.

After the meeting G4S sent the Council a
detailed rebuttal of residents' concerns. The document is not dated, nor does it bear the G4S name, address or logo, nor is it attributed to any person or
department.

It was emailed to the senior planning officer
by Dave Beadnall, who didn't state his job title. (He is G4S Children's
Services Manager for Safety Health & Environment. That took some finding
out).

G4S evidently doesn't think much of local residents. "Many of the objectors appear to have misunderstood the facts as set out
clearly in the application," says the anonymous rebuttal letter.
Objectors "have chosen to focus on more emotive, non-planning
issues".

The anonymous corporate voice dismisses all the concerns raised in
92 residents' written objections, which include worries about parking, property values,
quality of life, existing anti-social behaviour problems in the locality
— and G4S.

"Issues have also been raised with the
fact that the company's name was not included on the form, this is indeed true,"
writes Anon. He didn't elaborate upon that.

Some residents had pointed that sections of
the form had been left blank. About that, Anon said: "This application
was validated and registered by the LPA, therefore the content of the form was
deemed acceptable."

The letter went on:

"Some residents have
been aggrieved as to the lack of consultation carried out within the local area
about the proposed change of use. A meeting was in fact held with local
residents about the proposed change of use."

That's rather sly. It was local residents, having rumbled G4S, who called in executives for a grilling.

Glenda
Beato told me:

"G4S
tried to fly under the radar by using an employee's name on the planning
application, they have fabricated claims about traffic movements on the
application and they say that residents were consulted about the home. In fact
the residents held a privately funded meeting and invited G4S to speak,
otherwise there would have been NO contact whatsoever! The saga continues, but
the moral of this story is study all Planning Notices with care as G4S could be
entering your lives by using their under hand, bullying tactics!"

During the research for this article, the name Dave Beadnall (sender of the anonymous rebuttal) rang a bell.
Nine years ago Beadnall was one of three G4S guards involved in the fatal
restraint of youngster Gareth Myatt at Rainsbook Secure Training Centre near Rugby.
There is an article about that here.

Related

This article is published under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International licence. If you have any
queries about republishing please
contact us.
Please check individual images for licensing details.